[1043] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Routing wars pending?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Wed Nov 15 18:17:43 1995
From: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:12:06 -0600 (CST)
Cc: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, HANK@taunivm.tau.ac.il, nanog@dune.silkroad.com,
big-internet@munnari.oz.au, cidrd@iepg.org,
little@faline.bellcore.com (Mike Little)
In-Reply-To: <199511152133.QAA22225@faline.bellcore.com> from "Mike Little" at Nov 15, 95 04:33:40 pm
Salutations.
] >(Tim Bass)
] > Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and
] > politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems.
] >(Noel)
] >Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what
] >mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with.
] (Mike)
] This idea has been around *long* enough. When do we separate the name
] spaces? How about along with the IPng transition?
I ask the following question naievely because I don't know how to
ask it maturely.
What are the correlations and contrasts between our current
backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC
decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable.
Is there any correlation? I realize (think) that the FCC ruling
was localized to the US, perhaps not.....
I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to
play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine
this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of
address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider
and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate
routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get
a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are
portable. This bill passes.
It could happen.
Any thoughts?
-alan
